JUDGMENT S.S. Saron, J.:- The present petition has been filed by Sukhwinder Singh @ Babli seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 12.2.2010 for the offences under Sections 458, 324, 427, 323, 506, 148/149 IPC as also Section 326 IPC which was added later. 2. The FIR in the case has been registered against the petitioner on the statement of Gurmeet Singh, who has alleged that on 11.2.2010 at about 8.30 p.m., he (Gurmeet Singh) and his son Ladwinder Singh came at the shop of Mukhtiar Chand of their village. The complainant went inside the shop to purchase items for domestic use while his son was standing at the shutter of the shop. At that time, a grey coloured Indica car bearing No.8220 came. Hardev Singh, Nimma, Babli and Dara’s brother-in-law namely Pali were in it. Along with the said car, another car having yellow No.PB 11 AL 1640 of black colour in which 5-6 unknown persons were sitting, also came. Besides, a black colour motorcycle on which 2 unknown persons were riding, also reached the spot. The assailants caused injuries to Ladwinder Singh - son of the complainant – Gurmeet Singh. 3. The petitioner is admittedly attributed a simple injury. The earlier application filed by the petitioner for the grant of bail was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 16.3.2010 (P1) by observing that the petitioner was also involved in case FIR 116 (sic 166) dated 10.10.2007 registered at PS Kotwali Nabha for the offences under Sections 307, 452, 324, 323, 148/149 IPC. Besides, he was an accused in case FIR 18 dated 18.12.2007 registered at PS Nabha Sadar for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. 4. It is not in dispute that FIR 18 dated 18.12.2007 registered at PS Sadar Nabha has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 17.7.2007 (P2). As regards FIR 166, it is not in dispute even by learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Baljinder Kumar of PS Sadar Nabha that the petitioner was found innocent and was not sent up for trial. Therefore, evidently, in two of the cases in which it was stated that the petitioner was involved, in fact was not found involved as one FIR has been quashed by this Court and in the other FIR, he has been found innocent. Therefore, evidently, in two of the cases in which it was stated that the petitioner was involved, in fact was not found involved as one FIR has been quashed by this Court and in the other FIR, he has been found innocent. Therefore, the order dated 16.3.2010 (P1) insofar as the petitioner is concerned, was passed on the basis of wrong statements made by the State counsel on instructions that he received. The petitioner is attributed only simple injury in the incident that occurred and he is not involved in any other case. 5. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. 6. Accordingly, in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the arresting/IO. He shall join investigation as and when called and shall abide by the conditions of Section 438(2) CrPC. ----------------